A new report published by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development paints a grim picture of the world in 2050 based on current global trends. It predicts a world population of 9.2 billion people, generating a global GDP four times the size of today's, requiring 80 percent more energy. And with a worldwide energy mix still 85 percent reliant on fossil fuels by that time, it will be coal, oil, and gas that make up most of the difference, the OECD predicts.

Should that prove the case, and without new policy, the report warns the result will be the "locking in" of global warming, with a rise of as much as 6° C (about 10.8° F) predicted by the end of the century. Combined with other knock-on effects of population growth on biodiversity, water and health; the report asserts that the ensuing environmental degradation will result in consequences "that could endanger two centuries of rising living standards."

Ars looked in detail at the 320-page report in order to summarize its key findings.

A brief word on methodology

The OECD report is founded upon both its own ENV-Linkages General Equilibrium model (which derives environmental impacts from economic data, using a database of national economies maintained at Purdue University) and the IMAGE suite of models of the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Though the report makes projections for greenhouse gas emissions, it relies on prior research to link these to global temperature change.

Peak anthropocene?

According to the report, urban centers will bear the brunt of the population growth, with 70 percent of the world's people living in towns and cities by 2050, compared to just over 50 percent today. Unlike recent trends, it will be towns and cities with less than half a million inhabitants today, rather than the largest super-cities, that will grow most rapidly by 2050. The world's rural population is projected to decrease by 600 million people.

Though economic growth is predicted to be nearly universal, the developed world's proportionate slice of the global economic pie will shrink markedly, with OECD countries' share decreasing from 54 percent in 2010 to under 32 percent by 2050—significantly less than the BRIICS nations' (Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China, and South Africa) share of more than 40 percent. China's GDP is set to overtake that of the United States this year, and India is set to do the same by about 2038, according to the report.

Yet the script departs from the predictable narrative of relentless expansion for China and India. GDP growth rates in these countries will slow as drivers of growth such as education converge with those of the developed world.

It's thought that a quarter of the population of OECD countries will be over 65 by the middle of the century, and the populations of India and China will also age significantly. It's predicted that China's workforce will actually shrink. The populations of Japan and Korea, as well as parts of Europe, will decline; though the trend is not expected to be mirrored in the US and Canada, where immigration is projected to keep the populations growing. Russia's population is predicted to shrink, bucking the trend set by other BRIICS nations.

But the bigger picture is the population growth of non-OECD and non-BRIICS countries (or the Rest of the World, as the report puts it), where the population is expected to grow by an average of 1.3 percent per year. In the period between 2030 and 2050, Sub-Saharan African countries will see the highest economic growth rates in the world, at approximately 6 percent per year. The boom will be spurred in part by rapid growth in Africa's youthful populations, though the continent will remain the least-wealthy in the world. OECD economies, by contrast, are projected to grow by an average of 2 percent per year.

Energy insatiability

And population growth will spur energy consumption. The 80-percent increase predicted by 2050 translates to a total global energy consumption of 900 exajoules (EJ) per year (in other words 9 x 1020 joules)—65 times the annual energy consumption of the US in 2009. This figure factors in continual improvements in energy efficiency, and energy intensity (the ratio of energy consumption to GDP) is set to drop some 40 percent, the report predicts.

Fossil fuels are projected to remain cheaper than renewable sources of energy. The report predicts a 0.5-percent annual growth in oil consumption, and 1.8 percent for coal and natural gas, though oil and gas production are expected to peak by 2050 due to resource depletion. The same is not true of coal, where coal-rich regions happen to coincide with areas of strong economic growth. Use of nuclear energy, biofuels and renewable energy sources are all projected to increase steadily.

The environment in 2050

The report predicts that, as a direct result of increased energy consumption, there will be a 70-percent increase in energy-oriented carbon dioxide emissions, and an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions of 50 percent. This would correlate to a rise in global average temperature between 3° C and 6° C above preindustrial levels.

Air pollution will overtake contaminated water and lack of sanitation as the prime cause of premature mortality across the globe, potentially rising to 3.6 million deaths per year—mostly in China and India. Death rates caused by ground-level ozone among OECD countries are projected to be among the world's highest, thanks in part to the aging, urbanized populations.

But population growth has more direct effects upon the environment. The world's natural resources are set to undergo unprecedented strain. Water demand is projected to grow by 55 percent by 2050 (including a 400-percent rise in manufacturing water demand), when 40 percent of the global population will live in "water-stressed" areas. The report identifies groundwater depletion as the greatest threat to both agricultural and urban water supplies. Nutrient-pollution of water sources is projected to further deplete aquatic biodiversity. And though the number of people with access to an "improved" water source should increase, the report projects that by 2050, 1.4 billion people will be without basic sanitation. "Improved" does not necessarily equate to "good enough," alas.

With a need to fill more than nine billion bellies, farmland coverage is set to increase worldwide, placing extra pressure on land resources. Though deforestation rates will continue to decline; it's predicted that Earth's mature forests will shrink 13 percent, and global biodiversity will diminish by 10 percent. It isn't all bad news. Thanks in part to slowing global population growth and increasing produce yields, agricultural land coverage is actually predicted to peak before 2030, when deforestation rates should slow further.

Perhaps the least obvious of threats to human health identified in the report is the increasing danger posed by hazardous chemicals, as chemical-production increasingly relocates to developing countries where safety measures are "insufficient."

A closing window of opportunity

The report argues that immediate action not only makes environmental sense, but also economic sense. If global greenhouse emissions can be made to peak before 2020, a 2° C limit to the increase in world average temperature is possible. This would limit the costs of "adaptation and mitigation," but requires "ambitious decisions" to be taken more or less immediately.

The report sets a specific target of stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at 450ppm. At this level, studies have put the odds of keeping a global temperature rise under 2° C at between 40 and 60 percent. For this level to be achieved, the report calls for putting a "price on carbon" immediately, while implementing a gradual transformation of the energy sector into a low-carbon industry. Finally, the report calls for a wide implementation of "low-cost advanced technologies" that would be stimulated by the higher cost of fossil fuels, giving the example of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)—a technology which the Royal Society has suggested could decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations by between 50 and 150ppm.

The OECD additionally proposes phasing out fossil fuel subsidies which it claims amounts to $45 billion-75 billion per year in OECD countries, and over $400 billion per year in developing and emerging economies.

Beyond climate change, the report also highlights a number of other actions to mitigate environmental impacts of population growth, with the need to protect natural habitats perhaps foremost among them. Though it acknowledges that 13 percent of the world's land is protected, it claims that grassland, savanna, and marine environments are underrepresented. The report also calls for an end to environmentally harmful subsidies, including those provided to projects or companies which intensify land (or sea) use for agriculture, bioenergy, fishing, forestry, and transport.

The message

The message from the OECD is clear: the status quo is no longer acceptable. "Progress on an incremental, piecemeal, business-as-usual basis in the coming decades will not be enough," it states, quite categorically. And that's not coming from an environmental think tank, but an international body (albeit one with a Eurocentric outlook) with 34 members with the remit of stimulating economic growth and trade.

291 Reader Comments

It looks like what we really have to fear is environmentalists, the other stuff doesn't seem so scary to me as that.

Massive flooding? Oceans of acid? Widespread famine and water shortages, from both the population and climate factors? Environmental refugees fleeing into areas that are already full of other humans, and the inevitable wars that will cause? That scares the crap out of me. Have you seen what the conditions are like on Venus? Yeah, that's due to a runaway greenhouse effect; the highest plateaus are above the melting point of lead.

But wait, those environmentalists want us to live responsibly and within our own means. They see the world's ecosystem as valuable even if it doesn't directly benefit them. There is no way I am doing that and/or buying into that crap! (as i am far too self centered for that, heck I am gonna go and do some littering right now just out of spite)

This is what happens when a species of sufficient intelligence suddenly finds and utilizies hidden petroleum and other fossil fuels.

And you have multiple examples of this? Please share.

Have you ever wondered why SETI people have not found anything? They've been looking for 50 years and.... nothing. A number of 24/7 dedicated SETI projects are coming online. Statistically they should hear something in the next 20 years. If they don't it will further my personal belief that the fate of vast majority of civilizations (sufficiently intelligent life capable of manipulating their enivoronment) is to destroy themselves within a few centuries of becoming industrialized.

I wonder why?

The SETI people have not found anything because they will only be able to intercept communication from a tiny part of the galaxy. And on top of that the form of communication they are trying to intercept are most likely going to be antequated and not used by any space civilization if there are any that have a presence in range of earth. On top of that conservative estimates on how many earth-like planets there are in each galaxy come as low as 2-3 (though that number is probably off with 1-5 '0's).

And yes, 'statistically' they shouldn't hear anything... Also, you have to account for the location of space faring civilizations in time... I mean, how many are going to last over a million years?

Any time an organization releases a report on a problem where the solution is to give more money and influence to the organization, you need to take it with a grain of salt.

Yes, clearly organizations like the Red Cross should be mistrusted. Disaster stricken people should help themselves. Can I get another round of beers here? I just found another organization that needs funding to achieve its goals. THOSE BASS-TARDS!

You don't notice a difference between disaster stricken people, non-profit organizations, and huge corporations looking for handouts? Hint: one group is not helpless. If anything, that group should not only get nothing, but should be appropriately regulated to ensure fair competition in the marketplace. (Well, if we cared about maintaining a "free market" anyway, but just like the US constitution, they are merely lofty words which no longer reflect reality.)

When you allow someone to dictate to you how many children you can have, then you can dictate to me how many I can have.... actually, fuck that, the fact is that it is a human right to have as many children as you want and can support.

"I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?"

There are not enough of the rare earths used in reactor construction available to build the necessary number of nuclear power plants to meet the current world energy demand, let alone future demands, and reactors have a 40-50 year lifespan anyway.

Is this why mega-billionares are investing in underground bunkers (entire cities actually, they showed what the guy who owns Cartierr has in underground france, pretty amazing)?World elites seem superbusy trying to start another major war that will wipe a good percentage of population. Then they dont need to worry about not having enough resources for their own needs.

... Now, I have come to accept that I will see the complete fall of civilisation in my lifetime... Man, being a warring pack animal (think national borders, dislike of others not in social class, colour of skin, education = belonging to the pack), will ultimately wage war until one pack will be the victor.

Good luck to you all.

Good luck to you, too.

Repost from 03/19:

«At this point, I don't think a study like this will make the smallest difference in the outcome, for a couple reasons. First one being that despite oh-so-many scientific studies, reports, peer-reviewed articles and inter-governmental panels, the various protagonists have made up their minds and their opinions are so deeply entrenched that nothing will make them switch camp. It's become a philosophical dogma for most and I am not simply referring to the extreme radicals from each side here: tree huggers are just as closed-minded as the drill-baby-drill crowd. The arguments from both sides have been rehashed Ad Nauseam and if the research is deemed beyond reproach the reputation of the scientists and their "true" agenda is questioned. While I don't think studying CO sequestration and release is a waste of time, I am quite sure that publishing the conclusions in the media can do nothing to educate the masses and make them change their (our) habits and behaviour.

Speaking of which, without some drastic lifestyle changes for which there is simply no commitment or grassroot interest, there will be no miraculous change of heart from our leaders to reform the market supply and demand system. If people want oil, if they need oil, no politician or party will ever be suicidal and lead the charge agaisnt the hands that feed them. The population may hold a blinding faith in the electoral process and keep their illusions about democracy but lobbies and PACs are running the show, not the electorate. Even if it were not the case, the populace is so divided on the issues that any consensual quorum is impossible in the public arena.

Next, there is the defense aspect to consider. Can you name the planet's biggest gas guzzler ? To think that aircraft carriers, stealth fighters, bombers, tanks and hummers will all run on batteries is ludacrous. No budget deficit or fear of oceans rising in one hundred years will make any empire scale back its military supremacy.

Finally, there is my personal conviction that my fellow Man is basically incapable of transcending it's own selfish attitude even against its very own interest in the long run. The examples and proofs are just too numerous to quote. Flame away, it will only strengthten my point. From time to time comes along a Ghandi or a Salk but this is only so the Nobel commitee can throw its annual party. Mankind is on a one-way path to self-destruction, it is that simple. Our only hope is to keep the music playing long enough for us to retire happy.»

I think this is the most fascinating article that I have read in a long time. It actually shows an enormous concern for the future of the human race. The only hope for the energy situation seems to be solar energy all the way. I hope some of the industries come up with a solution to this mess. I know everyone else does also. The mess in the ocean is a very sad thing that everyone wishes had never occured. It will take years to clean itself. It may never really be cleaned after that mess. It is very sad. I hope no one wanted as much money as possible and greed was at the bottom of it though.

Massive flooding? Oceans of acid? Widespread famine and water shortages, from both the population and climate factors? Environmental refugees fleeing into areas that are already full of other humans, and the inevitable wars that will cause? That scares the crap out of me. Have you seen what the conditions are like on Venus? Yeah, that's due to a runaway greenhouse effect; the highest plateaus are above the melting point of lead.

Those things are certainly scary, but I'm confident that most of them won't come to pass because we'll deal with the problems before it comes to that. We haven't even begun to do what is possible to do to address the mess we've made, because we don't have the will yet. I predict we will. I also predict that bad things will happen in the future, but it'll be stuff we aren't even thinking about now.

I stand by what I said. None of this sounds as scary to me as the talk of proactively getting rid of billions of people.

Those things are certainly scary, but I'm confident that most of them won't come to pass because we'll deal with the problems before it comes to that. We haven't even begun to do what is possible to do to address the mess we've made, because we don't have the will yet. I predict we will.

This thread should be ample evidence that your prediction is unfounded.

We are a frog boiling in water, and collectively incapable of addressing this problem in a rational, proactive manner. There's too much acrimony, selfishness, and short-sighted thinking to solve it, and all the while the population keeps growing.

Someone observing from afar would be wise to bet against the survival of the human race.

When you allow someone to dictate to you how many children you can have, then you can dictate to me how many I can have.... actually, fuck that, the fact is that it is a human right to have as many children as you want and can support.

I think the point is that you and we, CANT support them. The planet can not support them, what makes you think you can avoid this fact?

The only answer that will really work in the short term, 38 years, is to remove 3-4 billion people... preferably without heating up the planet with a nuclear war. An engineered strain of the 1918 flu with some extra goodies added maybe. A slightly more gentle way would be to find an easy to apply ( think gigantic crop dusters) method to reduce the fertility of women and the sperm counts of men to a level where the birth rate drops to .5 children per couple and stays that way for a couple of centuries. Not only to reduce the population but to get people used to the idea of only one child or none per couple so it becomes the norm.

I have no dog in this fight. I have no children and I'll be dead of old age long before 2050. FWIW when I was born the world population was about 2.5 billion which may have been a sustainable number.

If you have no dog in this fight, you have no say. Sorry, but your cruel methods for reducing population are EXACTLY what many with power want to do, and you saying it here like its actually an option is despicable.

The same reports that they have been spouting for years, and what do the temperatures in my area, my state, and across the United States say?

That they are fearmongering, once you take out the weather stations that are put in urban areas (a good 75% of them) which are naturally hotter, a striking thing happens..... temperatures NORMALIZE and show absolutely no increase in the past 75 years.

source?

also: to everyone who doesn't understand global warming, do you work for an oil or coal company? if not, the why the hell shouldn't you try and limit co2 emissions in order to make the world a better place?

Because if the global warming models are wrong, which theyve shown themselves to be in the past as has been pointed out, then reducing CO2 output does harm to the economy and we still have melting ice caps.

Yes, clearly organizations like the Red Cross should be mistrusted. Disaster stricken people should help themselves. Can I get another round of beers here? I just found another organization that needs funding to achieve its goals. THOSE BASS-TARDS!

All organizations act in their own self-interest. I suggest you google "red cross scandal" if you think the Red Cross is an example of some sort of pure and innocent goodness.

Although I'm not sure why you're bringing up the Red Cross here.

The fundamental truth remains no matter who you're talking about: when someone attempts to sell you on a problem where the solution would greatly benefit them and their organization, you need to exercise the greatest degree of skepticism. Cigarette industry executives loved their children just as much as you do.

Ask yourself honestly and deeply "Who am I?" Who is it that wants a family? Who is it that needs to be loved? Who perceives that need? Who is it that perceives/thinks? What is the origin of that? Look within yourself unrelentingly for the answer to this question until you know. Only then will the earth be saved.

What the heel kind of wishy washy BS is that? When it comes to women getting tubes tied, if theyve never given birth, then it could be to the detriment of their health since it has been shown that certain hormonal changes that occur within a womans body AFTER childbirth are necessary to maintain health past a certain age, the lack of which may in fact lead to higher risk of diseases such as breast cancer. How many women do you think want to risk that? As to your comment about men having babies because they desire a legacy and to stop breeding because you need to have someone to love you.. again where the hell did you come up with this BS?

When you allow someone to dictate to you how many children you can have, then you can dictate to me how many I can have.... actually, fuck that, the fact is that it is a human right to have as many children as you want and can support.

I wasn't advocating any kind of limit. I was just saying people should stop having so many fucking babies.

The whole idea of preventing climate change is a dead issue. It's barely worth talking about anymore. Unless you're willing to put a gun to people's heads and demand they change their way of life it's just not going to happen. Instead we should just be focusing on geo-engineering and figuring out ways to fix man made climate change, and natural climate change, in the not too distant future.

This is what happens when a species of sufficient intelligence suddenly finds and utilizies hidden petroleum and other fossil fuels.

And you have multiple examples of this? Please share.

Have you ever wondered why SETI people have not found anything? They've been looking for 50 years and.... nothing. A number of 24/7 dedicated SETI projects are coming online. Statistically they should hear something in the next 20 years. If they don't it will further my personal belief that the fate of vast majority of civilizations (sufficiently intelligent life capable of manipulating their enivoronment) is to destroy themselves within a few centuries of becoming industrialized.

I wonder why?

I've wondered about this one. I think there are plenty of reasons why we wouldn't hear anything...

- We'd need to be in the right place at the right time. When you think about it, this might be -really- unlikely. We'd need civilisations to be in the period when they are sending out the appropriate broadcasts to have hit us in the 30 year window we've been looking. How old is the universe, how many light years (radio waves at speed of light) are we from even our closest star... Yeah. Unlikely.

- Civilisations don't always die out when they wipe themselves out. We haven't had a cataclysmic event recently but they do happen.

- Who says a civilisation would think as we do and communicate as we do? All sorts of assumptions in SETI - sensible as they may seem to us.

- A civilisation might rise to industrialization and survive for 50 million years and we still might hear nothing. The Cretaceous period ended over 60 million years ago, and we've been listening for 30 years.

Have you ever seen what happens to scientists who DO publish studies that "throw doubt" on the current AGW trend? Its the equivalent of political suicide, they would be character assassinated in mere days and they would never get another grant for any other study ever again. Which means that statement was made under duress and cant be taken as unquestionable truth.

Land covers 29.22 percent of the Earth's surface. Water covers the other 70.78 percent of the Earth's surface.

Of that 29.22% of land mass, humans occupy less than 1% of that area.

Humans are thus truly a MERE SPEC OF DUST ON THE PLANET EARTH, yet we are to believe we are creating SO much "greenhouse gas" that we are causing global warming??

This is not only erroneous science, it's pure INSANITY.

Funny you say that. I flew into Tokyo Narrita (sp?) recently and, for all the time I was flying over land (40 mins+), I could not see any natural landscape below. Sure there were lots of green fields, but they were all farms.

When you allow someone to dictate to you how many children you can have, then you can dictate to me how many I can have.... actually, fuck that, the fact is that it is a human right to have as many children as you want and can support.

I think the point is that you and we, CANT support them. The planet can not support them, what makes you think you can avoid this fact?

Have you ever seen what happens to scientists who DO publish studies that "throw doubt" on the current AGW trend? Its the equivalent of political suicide, they would be character assassinated in mere days and they would never get another grant for any other study ever again. Which means that statement was made under duress and cant be taken as unquestionable truth.

If they were afraid of the backlash from publishing a study critical to global warming then what they would've done was to not publish it rather than to publish it and claim it showed something other than what it did. Also, if you'd actually read it then you'd know that they are misrepresenting it.

When you allow someone to dictate to you how many children you can have, then you can dictate to me how many I can have.... actually, fuck that, the fact is that it is a human right to have as many children as you want and can support.

When your offspring require none of my resources, having them can be considered a right. In almost all modern societies, however, this is not the case--where I live for example public schooling costs around $10,000 per year per student, so anyone not sending their kids exclusively to private school is essentially taking $120,000 out of their neighbors' pockets to finance their children. The odds are that your kids and those of others also require the rest of us to pay more for infrastructure buildout and maintenance.

It's not your right to take my resources, therefore it's only your right to have children if you can pay for all of the expenses associated with them directly. Otherwise, it's merely a privilege not a right, and the rest of us would be entitled to decide to limit the burdens placed on us by the excessive and unreasonable reproductive choices of others. China's One Child Policy is for example a reasonable, rational, morally defensible restriction in such a light.

Land covers 29.22 percent of the Earth's surface. Water covers the other 70.78 percent of the Earth's surface.

Of that 29.22% of land mass, humans occupy less than 1% of that area.

Humans are thus truly a MERE SPEC OF DUST ON THE PLANET EARTH, yet we are to believe we are creating SO much "greenhouse gas" that we are causing global warming??

This is not only erroneous science, it's pure INSANITY.

You know, when you put it that way, AGW must be a total hoax!

I'm glad someone finally gave that topic the rigorous scientific analysis it deserved. Well done!

Actually it might actually be a hoax. See, if the studies about the need for population control are to be believed, and ARE believed by the very rich and powerful, then what they face is having to give up their wealth and their power in order to sustain life on earth. Those people dont want to lose their wealth and power. In that sort of a situation what lengths do you think they would be willing to go to make the world think they need to voluntarily limit population growth? What kind of resources do they have available to them to devote to reaching those goals? Im not saying I believe that is what is happening or that there is some sort of conspiracy by the very rich to kill off 3billion people, just that it is possible and those who think it isnt are being naive. It is quite possible to manufacture consensus and the I find myself questioning the status quo regarding AGW due simply to the amount of character assassination that goes on whenever anyone suggests evidence that might weaken the AGW arguments. They attack the person rather than their work in many cases, driving these people into bankruptcy and ruining their entire careers. Various forms of quackery have existed for many many years but none of those quacks have ever had to deal with the level of hate and professional attacks that a AGW denier has to deal with. The very fact that the powers that be(whoever and whatever they may be) push back so extremely hard against a person that denies AGW is fact enough to question the status quo. If the people who were denying it were really just corporate shills, no one would take them seriously to begin with. We would not see people denying it that were previously highly respected scientists and at the same time we would not see the push back we currently see, it would not be necessary. The very existence of such extreme character assassination leads one to question AGW. Its the same thing as when the company you work for is going out of business but tells you the opposite. If management treats comments suggesting such as a joke, not be taken seriously and conversation regarding such are light hearted, then there probably isnt much to worry about. But, when a company starts taking those comments seriously and hauling people into offices and threatening to fire people for even suggesting such a thing, chances are that company is in real danger. The same philosophy can be applied to AGW.

We really need to start figuring out how to get off, and stay off, this rock -.-

This "rock" is the only place for light years around where humans can live without an artificial enclosure. Priority one is to take care of such a rare thing.

Priority two is to learn how to build a warp drive or terraform some planet or moon in our own solar system, because without that, any humans who actually leave this rock will be doomed to a future of never setting foot in the natural outside world ever again. Forever living inside a tin can because they were lazy enough to think it would be better to leave rather than save their own homeworld.

When you allow someone to dictate to you how many children you can have, then you can dictate to me how many I can have.... actually, fuck that, the fact is that it is a human right to have as many children as you want and can support.

When your offspring require none of my resources, having them can be considered a right. In almost all modern societies, however, this is not the case--where I live for example public schooling costs around $10,000 per year per student, so anyone not sending their kids exclusively to private school is essentially taking $120,000 out of their neighbors' pockets to finance their children. The odds are that your kids and those of others also require the rest of us to pay more for infrastructure buildout and maintenance.

It's not your right to take my resources, therefore it's only your right to have children if you can pay for all of the expenses associated with them directly. Otherwise, it's merely a privilege not a right, and the rest of us would be entitled to decide to limit the burdens placed on us by the excessive and unreasonable reproductive choices of others. China's One Child Policy is for example a reasonable, rational, morally defensible restriction in such a light.

Your analogy fails on a number of levels. A right has never required that the exercise of that right has no impact on others. I cannot thing of any right that can be so defined. Rights are typically decided by society (things that are deemed fundamental are granted "right" status). Otherwise one might argue that you can only live if you can provide all the resources you need (the second you cannot pay for your needs you would have no right to live, it would be a privilege and the state could kill if it decided to). So I hope you don't mind if I reject your definition of a right.

I think this is the most fascinating article that I have read in a long time. It actually shows an enormous concern for the future of the human race. The only hope for the energy situation seems to be solar energy all the way. I hope some of the industries come up with a solution to this mess. I know everyone else does also. The mess in the ocean is a very sad thing that everyone wishes had never occured. It will take years to clean itself. It may never really be cleaned after that mess. It is very sad. I hope no one wanted as much money as possible and greed was at the bottom of it though.

Welcome nancysnow. There are solutions available, but promoting solar above all else is preventing their development, and effectively promoting continued fossil fuel consumption. Solar does make sense in certain circumstances, but no one who has an awareness of the truly massive scale of our civilization's energy requirements, would dream of suggesting that solar and wind could meet that demand alone. Indeed, the fossil fuel industry is very supportive of such efforts, as renewables require massive amounts of energy to produce, and will require natural gas as a backup. The ugly truth, is that using natural gas alone would be more environmentally friendly than to combine it with the renewables in this manner. Liquid fuels will still be required, and environmental atrocities such as this will not only continue, but expand.

When it comes down to it, environmental footprint is directly related to the density of an energy source, and wind and solar are absolutely terrible on that metric. Less energy dense equals more environmental impact. While fusion promises even better energy density, the best we manage today is with fission, which is about a million times more energy dense than a hydrocarbon bond. Yet fossil fuels are far more energy dense than renewables, and we see how much environmental devastation they cause.

Todays nuclear reactors (or the 1950s really) make very poor use of that immense resource, in a design which their own inventor decried as unsuitable for civilian power generation, citing safety concerns. Of course, our first attempts at a new technology are rarely very good, and nuclear power is no exception. (Though objectively, by comparison to existing technologies, it is still our safest option.) With molten salt reactors, it is a whole new story, about as far removed from conventional nuclear as fusion would be, but already demonstrated, and far more practical. They are fundamentally different in most every way, so please keep an open mind, and take the time to learn about them before forsaking a very real alternative to fossil fuels

If you are concerned about the environment then please support LFTR and molten salt reactor development; they offer a realizable solution for the wholesale replacement of fossil fuels. Please take a few minutes to learn more and sign the Thorium Petition in the US, or this one in the UK. If you could care less about the environment and are merely self-interested, please do the same, as is a guaranteed path to prosperity.

Comments like this are the reason no one takes conservatives seriously. You just couldn't help yourself could you?

This is why liberals are scorned by reasonable people.

This is very much scare mongering. For one thing you would need an increase in GdP if the population is booming. As to energy we can deal with that in ten years time simply by building nukes. That is existing nuke technology by the way, by 2050 we could have in place a wide array of nuclear sources for energy generation. All it takes is some will and and a mind set change that it is possible.

We really need to start figuring out how to get off, and stay off, this rock -.-

This "rock" is the only place for light years around where humans can live without an artificial enclosure. Priority one is to take care of such a rare thing.

Priority two is to learn how to build a warp drive or terraform some planet or moon in our own solar system, because without that, any humans who actually leave this rock will be doomed to a future of never setting foot in the natural outside world ever again. Forever living inside a tin can because they were lazy enough to think it would be better to leave rather than save their own homeworld.

Just wanted to remind you that warp drives are science fiction. We are never going to build one or terraform Mars or anything like that. So we should probably focus our efforts on something else. Solar power seems like a better bet to me.

It is the bad science that puts AGW into question. You see I have no doubt at all that humans can cause serious pollution problems we have seen it in the impact of acid rain and mercury contamination. The thing here is sound scientific methods have been used to prove that these things are man made and in some cases have tracked the problem to specific sources.

The problem with the AGW crowd is that their so called science is full of holes. The most significant of which is the denial of past global climate changes. Then they factor out the impact of the sun. Beyond all of that we have this idea that CO2 levels dramatically impact climate, promoted with most vigor I might add, but no real proof.

In the end we really appear to have a bunch of bozos hell bent on maintaining their research funds via the most hideous of scare tactics. It is really sad what people will go to to keep a cushy job where they are accountable to no one.

Kin24 wrote:

dlux wrote:

Justin-Case wrote:

Land covers 29.22 percent of the Earth's surface. Water covers the other 70.78 percent of the Earth's surface.

Of that 29.22% of land mass, humans occupy less than 1% of that area.

Humans are thus truly a MERE SPEC OF DUST ON THE PLANET EARTH, yet we are to believe we are creating SO much "greenhouse gas" that we are causing global warming??

This is not only erroneous science, it's pure INSANITY.

You know, when you put it that way, AGW must be a total hoax!

I'm glad someone finally gave that topic the rigorous scientific analysis it deserved. Well done!

Actually it might actually be a hoax. See, if the studies about the need for population control are to be believed, and ARE believed by the very rich and powerful, then what they face is having to give up their wealth and their power in order to sustain life on earth. Those people dont want to lose their wealth and power. In that sort of a situation what lengths do you think they would be willing to go to make the world think they need to voluntarily limit population growth? What kind of resources do they have available to them to devote to reaching those goals? Im not saying I believe that is what is happening or that there is some sort of conspiracy by the very rich to kill off 3billion people, just that it is possible and those who think it isnt are being naive. It is quite possible to manufacture consensus and the I find myself questioning the status quo regarding AGW due simply to the amount of character assassination that goes on whenever anyone suggests evidence that might weaken the AGW arguments. They attack the person rather than their work in many cases, driving these people into bankruptcy and ruining their entire careers. Various forms of quackery have existed for many many years but none of those quacks have ever had to deal with the level of hate and professional attacks that a AGW denier has to deal with. The very fact that the powers that be(whoever and whatever they may be) push back so extremely hard against a person that denies AGW is fact enough to question the status quo. If the people who were denying it were really just corporate shills, no one would take them seriously to begin with. We would not see people denying it that were previously highly respected scientists and at the same time we would not see the push back we currently see, it would not be necessary. The very existence of such extreme character assassination leads one to question AGW. Its the same thing as when the company you work for is going out of business but tells you the opposite. If management treats comments suggesting such as a joke, not be taken seriously and conversation regarding such are light hearted, then there probably isnt much to worry about. But, when a company starts taking those comments seriously and hauling people into offices and threatening to fire people for even suggesting such a thing, chances are that company is in real danger. The same philosophy can be applied to AGW.

When you allow someone to dictate to you how many children you can have, then you can dictate to me how many I can have.... actually, fuck that, the fact is that it is a human right to have as many children as you want and can support.

I think the point is that you and we, CANT support them. The planet can not support them, what makes you think you can avoid this fact?

Unproven assertion.

Smoker, meet lung cancer. Lung cancer, meet smoker. I'm sure you two will get along just fabulously!